file: /pub/resources/text/Pro-life.News/1994: PLN-0402.TXT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life Communications - Volume 4, No. 2 February, 1994
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those
interested in Pro-Life issues. All submissions should be sent to the editor,
Steve or the assistant editor Sean
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) US Supreme Court: "RICO Applies"
On the 24th of February, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a federal
racketeering statute known as RICO can be used in lawsuits against intimidation
around an abortion clinic. The main point of the case was that a plaintiff
[Such as the National Organization of Women (NOW) or Planned Parenthood (PP)]
does not have to prove an economic motive on the part of a defendant [such as
Rescue America or Operation Rescue (OR)] in order to win conviction and
damages.
The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) was passed by
the US Congress to empower law-enforcers to be able to halt organized crime
activities, and to permit those harmed by said illegal organizations to sue for
damages from the individuals themselves. Formally, RICO prohibits
"enterprises" that operate through a "pattern of racketeering activity," which
it defines as at least two violations of state or Federal law. Disturbingly,
convictions are not necessary to establish that violations occurred. Under
RICO, law enforcers are given powers to seize and detain _first_, so as to
prevent money, evidence, etc. from disappearing. Later, at hearings they sort
out who is guilty, who is not. Also, if the full extent of RICO is invoked
against a particular group, not only are the assets of the group up for
seizure, but so are any of the group's supporters.
The point is that abortion supporters in the US can use this law to go after
pro-life rescuers and organizers _personally_, just as the law tries to stop
organized crime bosses personally. There are several questions the lower
courts will need to decide regarding the imposition of RICO statutes: proving
intimidation on the part of the defendants, and reconciling the defendants'
free speech rights. [See note at the end.] The next set of trials surrounding
rescues will be very interesting.
So what does this mean? The local housewife who organizes protests can have her
house, car, and all monetary assets seized by the court before she ever goes to
trial - and the whole time the trial goes on, she's out all of her money, all
of her assets, and her family has nothing to live on until the trial is over.
If arrested, the same happens to all those who are a part of her organization
(usually they only go after leaders). [This is what happened in a case in
Philadelphia, as i recall. Ed.] If she is judged guilty, the abortionists are
entitled to triple damages. The big question: what illegal activity needs to
happen for such draconian measures to take place?
Well, based on one of the first RICO cases to occur (Philadelphia, around 1986)
not much at all; The protests were legal, and the point was that it was an
_organized_ effort, even though the organizers had no control over, nor
encouraged illegal activity. All they did was manage the schedules, so there
would be demonstrators in front of the abortuary at all times. The case was
decided in favor of the (pro-life) defendants, because no economic motive was
proven. This is exactly the understanding that the Supreme Court decided was
not necessary for RICO to apply.
[This news may not be quite as dire as it sounds. The ruling means that
RICO-based lawsuits against pro-life protestors cannot be _automatically_
dismissed on the non-economic argument. The conflicts between these attempts
to silence voices of life and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech
give grounds for hope. Justices Souter and Kennedy issued a concurring opinion
warning that the RICO ruling "does not bar First Amendment challenges to RICO's
application in particular cases." The Court has also agreed to hear a Florida
case (_Madsen vs. Women's Health Center_) challenging an law limiting pro-life
protest -- precisely because, by banning protest on the basis of _content_, the
law may violate the First Amendment. Ironically, even NOW lawyer Fay Clayton
observes that peaceful protest---which she describes as picketing, praying and
leafleting---should be protected under the First Amendment. --Asst.Ed.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Across the Pond: People's Republic of China
In Bejing, a law in draft form is being considered which will force pregnant
Chinese women with infectious diseases or carrying abnormal fetuses to abort
their child, and then be sterilized. The official Chinese news agency (Xinhua)
reported that the proposed law is aimed at cutting a high rate of "inferior
quality" births "and heighten the standards of the whole population." People
with ailments like venereal disease, hepatis or mental illness will not be
allowed to marry and have children until they are certified disease free.
Public Health Minister Chen Minzhang stated that the measure will help prevent
infections and hereditary diseases and exists to protect the health of mothers
and children. Chen said China urgently needs to adopt the law to stop "the
prevalence of abnormal births." Xinhua defended this position with statistics
showing that the births of 10 million disabled people "could have been
prevented through better controls." Chen also announced that the law would also
strengthen controls over organizations involved in pre-marital checks,
eugenics, pre-birth diagnosis or sterilizations.
China already restricts Chinese families to one child each, and enforces this
policy by forcing those who already have children to abort; the consequence of
the current law is that many women abort their children voluntarily until they
have the child they want. This trend produced a surge in the use of portable
ultrasonic machines used to determine the sex of babies. The current one-child
policy forces women pregnant with their second child into a severe dilemma;
despite strong opposition from the State Department, such women are now able to
seek refuge in the United States as political refugees.
Refreshingly, the international community has condemned this action -- the
World Psychiatric Association even responded by cancelling its planned 1996
conference in Bejing. [It is rumored that a perturbed China has retreated
somewhat in the face of the negative reaction, but we cannot find confirmation
at this time.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) On the National Front: Good News (For a Change)
*WASHINGTON, DC*: At the National Prayer Breakfast on February 3, Mother Teresa
of Calcutta challenged America to end the holocaust of abortion, which she
cited as "the greatest destroyer of peace today." (If the defenseless unborn
can be killed for convenience, what moral ground is left?) Stating "Give them
to me," she offered to take into her care any child that would otherwise be
aborted. While many in attendance applauded, the Clintons were silent.
*LANSING, MICHIGAN*: State House member Alvin Kukuk introduced legislation
banning abortion for sex selection. Pro-abortion groups are critical [leading
one to ask: who here is being anti-woman?]
*WASHINGTON, DC and HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA*: On Monday, Feb. 7, Justice David
Souter denied a last-ditch motion by pro-abortion forces still trying to block
the Pennsylvania abortion laws (which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in "Planned
Parenthood vs. Casey"). This action (finally!) exhausts the options of law's
opponents. THe PA Anti-Abortion statute will become the state law.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Implications of Clinton's Health Care Abortions
The following are excerpts of a story that appeared in the _New York Post_ on
Friday, December 3. [Apparently, neither the _New York Times_ nor the _New York
Daily News_ touched the story.] The story makes clear, that the Clinton
proposal is a threat to all organizations (especially churches) that recognize
the evil of abortion, including Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons,
and Orthodox Jews.
o John Cardinal O'Connor ripped into President Clinton's health-care plan,
saying it would force the Catholic Church to violate its own teachings on
morality and pay for abortions for its staff.
o "Say it ain't so, Mr. President," O'Connor wrote in a blistering column in
_Catholic New York_ in which he all but accused Clinton of directly threatening
the church's future.
o "You, Mr. President, would be using federal law to force a variety of
companies, foundations, and organizations to fund what they believe to be the
destruction of human life or go out of business," O'Connor wrote.
o "I find it difficult to believe that you would _want_ to try to do this to
the Catholic Church, Mr. President," he added.
o The cardinal wrote scathingly of what he called "procured abortion" and
rejected suggestions that church employees wouldn't want them, saying, "Yes,
Virginia, some Catholics have abortions, sadly."
o Under the plan now, Catholic doctors and hospitals could refuse to perform
abortions, but every health plan must arrange to provide all basic services,
even if that means contracting out... Thus, a health plan made up exclusively
of Catholic hospitals would have to arrange to have abortion services provided
by other hospitals and doctors -- and reimburse them. [Note that this would
apply to _all_ plans/groups that oppose abortions, or oppose paying for them.]
o [In his column,] O'Connor hinted the church will gear up against Clinton's
plan unless abortion is dropped.
The story also quoted pro-abortion spokesmen who agreed that Cardinal O'Connor
is correct in saying the plan would require the Catholic Church and other
pro-life organizations to pay for employee abortions, and incidently thought
this is a good thing.
In responding to those who oppose forcing abortion into all health-care plans,
Pro-abortion folks often respond that through the current private insurance
system, Americans already pay for abortions. While this is true for many plans
that businesses can sign up for, it is not true for all. It depends on the plan
that the employer pays for. For example, the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh
has its medical benefits for employees through Blue Cross/Blue Shield of
Western PA, but they explicitly exclude abortion as a medical procedure that is
an eligible benefit. [Pro-aborts might point out that, by paying
into Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Diocese is still subsidising abortion.]
A good question to ask yourself, especially if you are an employer
or work with employee benefits is this: *Does your health insurance?*
[A question for our readers: does anyone have any solid data on this issue?]
To echo the Clinton administration's commitment to including abortion in
National Health Care, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala assured
NARRAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) in January
that "we understand that there's no such thing as health equality for women
unless women have full reproductive coverage." Full coverage for abortion
services is among the benefits President Clinton offers in his health care
reform bill, now before Congress.
But the story continues: While drumming up support for the inclusion of
abortion in the Clinton Health Care plan, U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders
likened the unborn child to a cancer, noting that there is little controversy
about health services which are provided solely to men. "What about men who
have prostate cancer?" asked Elders. "Are we going to say we aren't going to
fund prostate cancer" treatment?
Bishop Charles Grahmann of Dallas, Texas followed up on Elders' and O'Connor's
comments. In his homily marking the twenty-first anniversary of the _Roe vs.
Wade_ decision, he closed with a promise to refuse to pay his taxes if abortion
services funding is included in the Clinton Health Care Plan. "I will not pay
taxes so that someone else can be killed" he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Elders on Down's
[ from _League Lines_, newsletter of the East Bay (SF) Area Down Syndrome
League - most subscribers are parents of children with Down's Syndrome. Ed.]
It has come to our attention that the newly confirmed Surgeon General, Dr.
Jocelyn Elders, while testifying before the Labor and Human Resources Committee
in May 1990, stressed that "abortion has had an important and positive public
health effect", pointing out that "the number of Down's [sic] syndrome infants
in Washington state in 1976 was 64% lower than it would have been without legal
abortion."
It is not our intention to argue the issue of legal abortion. What is of grave
concern is Dr. Elders' "views on preventing at least one kind of defective
genetic material from further lowering American population standards..." It is
our belief that as Surgeon General, Dr. Elders is responsible for the public
health of all citizens of the United States, whatever their genetic make-up,
including individuals with Down syndrome. We also contend that as Surgeon
General she is not in the business of advocating what genetic make-up is
acceptable and what is not.
We suggest you consider letting Dr. Elders know that as a parent of a child
with Down syndrome, you expect equal consideration in health issues, not just
for the preferred population. Her address is: Dept. of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Division, 200 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC,
20201.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Resources:
Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad (Fetal Tissue) Ban?
A recent article in the _Human Life Review_ listed medical charities that
supported an end to the federal ban, whether or not they had a specific
interest in doing fetal tissue research themselves. The author was Mary
Meehan, and the title was "Why a Good Charity is Hard To Find."
PP Supporters and News:
*Life Decisions International* publishes a list of corporations known to be
financial supporters of Planned Parenthood. For a copy of the list, send $2
and a SASE to Patricia Bainbridge at LDI, P.O. Box 419, Amherst, NY 14226-0419
(ask for the Boycott list). For a donation of $20 per year you can get updates
of the list as they are published, or for $25 a year you can get the _Caleb
Report_, which is LDI's newsletter and includes PP-related news as well as
updates on the list. (You can tell her I sent you.)
- Anne-Marie Kinsley
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steve Ertelt, the President for Arkansas Collegians For Life, is currently
helping college students at colleges across America begin a new pro-life
organization or enhance the effectiveness of their current one. Steve is an
Organizational Development Consultant (certified by the Organizational
Development Institute and the American Management Association) and is looking
to help you and your organization make a difference at your college. Drop Steve
a line at for more information.
[From the Internet Pro-Life Journal, vol. 1 no. 1 - to subscribe contact
]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Announcements:
*Arkansas Collegians For Life (ACFL) Convention* *Little Rock, Arkansas*
*Saturday 19 February, 1994: 10am-2pm*
First convention for 1994 and will be held at St. Vincents hospital in Little
Rock from 10AM - 2PM on the 19th of February. ACFL will be electing officers
and discussing goals and plans for the duration of the school year. If you
can't make this one (or even if you can), another convention will be held later
in the year. For more information, call Steve Ertelt at (501) 336-5209 or Mark
White at (501) 245-4124. [From the Internet Pro-Life Journal v1n1]
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
*LIFE SUMMIT 1994* *Stanford University*
Saturday 26 February, 1994: 12:30-4pm
Come help found the Northern California Chapter of Collegians for Life, a
coalition of pro-life students and student groups from around Northern
California. The founding convention will be held on February 26 at Stanford.
All pro-life students from any school or state are invited to attend! This
year's featured speaker is Raymond Denehy, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy,
University of San Francisco. For more information, call (415) 497-6745 (leave
a message), or send email to Vincent Mooney at or
Jack Guerrero at .
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
*Ivy League Coalition for Life Convention* *Columbia University*
March 4th and 5th, 1994
Columbia University will be the host of the Ivy League Coalition for Life
Convention on March 4th and 5th. We have sent out invitations to the Ivies,
MIT, Wellesley, West Point, Rutgers, Seton Hall, St. Johns, Fordham, Mt.
Holyoke, Manhattan, and NYU. Unfortunately, our contacts are not necessarily
the best, so if anyone from those schools (or other ones in the area) reads
about this and hasn't received any mail from us, they should please e-mail me,
or call me in New York at (212) 222-3285. The Conference is for university
students, graduate and undergraduate.
Nat Hentoff of the _Village Voice_ will be our opening speaker on Friday night.
The conference will go on all day Saturday, and consists of a general meeting
of the Ivy League Coalition for Life in the morning, workshops in the
afternoon, and a final speech by Ruth Pakaluk, former president of
Massachusetts Citizens for Life. For info contact Andy O'Meara at
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8) Reader Questions:
FACE Bill Killed? [v4n1]
I just caught up with my mail, and I noticed in your last message that the FACE
bill was killed? I seem to remember that FACE (unfortunately) passed, and my
pro-abortion friends say the same. What's the story here? - Dorothy Nelson
[ Hi Dorothy - FACE Passed both houses in different forms; it was not signed
into law; The bill will have to be reconsidered for it to become law. From
what i understand, there are lawmakers trying to work out the differences
between the House and the Senate versions, so FACE can pass. FACE is not law
YET, despite the fact that it passed both houses. Ed. ]
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Looking for a book...
I would like to obtain a book by, I think, William Brennan called _Abortion the
Holocaust_ or something like that. Do you know how I can get it? I'd like to
buy or see a copy. Thanks. - Lin Collette
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the Month:
"We have devalued the worth of the individual and if somebody doesn't
have good functioning abilities, if they are old, disabled, poor
uninsured, then we deem that their life isn't worth living."
- Joni Eareckson Tada. As a teen, she lost the use of her arms
and legs in a diving accident. She went on to become an
accomplished artist, writer, recording artist, broadcaster,
and advocate for those with disabilities of all kinds.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Credits: |
| 2 - Many thanks to Eric Ewanco. Details of the ruling can be found |
| in the NY Times National Edition, 25 Jan 94, pp. A1 and A10. |
| 4 - Many thanks to Marty Helgesen and Lance Simmons. |
| 5 - Many thanks to David Cruz-Uribe, SFO. He and his wife subscribe to |
| _League Lines_ since their son, who has Down syndrome, was born while |
| they were living in Oakland CA. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or
help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.